Sat 09 Jun 2007 : The United what of America?
It has been frequently noted that many corporations exceed nation states in GDP. It has been less frequently noted that some also exceed them in population (employees).

But it is odd that the comparison hasn't been taken further. Since so many live in the state of the corporation, let us take the comparison seriously and ask the following question. What kind of states are giant corporations?

In comparing countries, after the easy observations of population size and GDP, it is usual to compare the system of government, the major power groupings and the civic freedoms available to their populations.

The corporation as a nation state has the following properties:

* Suffrage (the right to vote) does not exist except for land holders ("share holders") and even there voting power is in proportion to land ownership.
* All executive power flows from a central committee. Female representation is almost unknown.
* There is no division of powers. There is no forth estate. There are no juries and innocence is not presumed.
* Failure to submit to any order can result in instant exile.
* There is no freedom of speech. There is no right of association. Love is forbidden without state approval.
* The economy is centrally planned.
* There is pervasive surveillance of movement and electronic communication.
* The society is heavily regulated and this regulation is enforced, to the degree many employees are told when, where and how many times a day they can goto the toilet.
* There is almost no transparency and something like the FOIA is unimaginable.
* The state has one party. Opposition groups (unions) are banned, surveilled or marginalized whenever and wherever possible.

These large multinationals, despite having a GDP and population comparable to Belgium, Denmark or New Zealand have nothing like their quality of civic freedoms. Internally they mirror the most pernicious aspects of the 1960s Soviet. This even more striking when the civilising laws of region the company operates in are weak (e.g West Pupua or South Korea). There one can see the behavior of these new states clearly, unobscured by their surroundings.

If small business and non-profits are eliminated from the US, then what's left? Some kind of federation of Communist states.

A United Soviet of America.

Are the corporations taking over the government?

Before, the government was a puppet for corporations. Now, they seem to be merging and the rules we live under that of corporations rather than a free people.

Contractors and temps do a lot of the work. The Government, however, doesn't really care how much they're flinging at these overpriced, inefficient companies. The problem is still Government. Without it, these companies would actually have to compete and care about the product/service they produce instead of coasting through life and only sprucing things up before a review.

Ed O'Keefe of the Washington Post does some number-crunching today, trying to get a handle on the size of the federal workforce relative to the population of the country as a whole. He uses figures for the total federal workforce (including postal workers, who are often left out of the equation in such calculations).
The bottom line? Uncle Sam's workforce is shrinking relative to the U.S. population:

1962: 2.48 million feds, or 13.3 percent of a total population of 186.5 million

2010: 2.65 million feds, or 8.4 percent of a total population of 310.3 million

I should note that while, under these calculations, the total federal employment figure is higher today than four decades ago, at several points in the intervening years, it was higher than it is today. Even during the height of the small-government Reagan years, for example, the figure stood at 2.77 million.

Contractors and temps do a lot of the work. The Government, however, doesn't really care how much they're flinging at these overpriced, inefficient companies. The problem is still Government. Without it, these companies would actually have to compete and care about the product/service they produce instead of coasting through life and only sprucing things up before a review.

QFT!! You're a good girl, melady.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.

Ed O'Keefe of the Washington Post does some number-crunching today, trying to get a handle on the size of the federal workforce relative to the population of the country as a whole. He uses figures for the total federal workforce (including postal workers, who are often left out of the equation in such calculations).
The bottom line? Uncle Sam's workforce is shrinking relative to the U.S. population:

1962: 2.48 million feds, or 13.3 percent of a total population of 186.5 million

2010: 2.65 million feds, or 8.4 percent of a total population of 310.3 million

I should note that while, under these calculations, the total federal employment figure is higher today than four decades ago, at several points in the intervening years, it was higher than it is today. Even during the height of the small-government Reagan years, for example, the figure stood at 2.77 million.

Including or not including military service personnel? Including military, his is correct. In any event, government spending has consistently gone up as a percent of GDP. What this tells us is that probably what has happened is that government employees' pay has increased substantially over that period compared to the average persons' pay. That is not a good recipe for the government if they wish to continue down the big government road.

the thing is, there are literally hundreds of people on the government dole who are contractors or subcontractors...to have a truly accurate figure we'd have to include all of these personnel as well.

For example, the individuals who construct the roads are "private" and not "public" employees, but, in my book, they should be considered public employees since their work is entirely dependent on government action...same way with civilians working for the DoD or university faculty working on technology that is or will only be used by the government.

I'd venture to guess if all of these figures were taken into account, the amount who are dependent on the government for their paycheck is truly astounding.

Either way, sounds like Assange doesn't understand the nature of a voluntary contract, and I'm guessing he fails to realize that much of big businesses success and style is precisely because it has support from the state---put biz out in the free market and it's a dog eat dog world where only the most competitive survive.

While some decline in government workers has happened over the last two years, (not nearly as many as private sector jobs) look at the almost 45% increase in local government over the past 25 years, from roughly 8 million to 14 million.

"It's a Free Country."
"They hate us for our Freedoms."
"The troops are protecting your Freedom."

Either way, sounds like Assange doesn't understand the nature of a voluntary contract, and I'm guessing he fails to realize that much of big businesses success and style is precisely because it has support from the state---put biz out in the free market and it's a dog eat dog world where only the most competitive survive.

I don’t think that is correct. I think Assange is pointing out how internal policies and priorities of business don’t work as government codes/laws. If I own a business, I can dictate the mission (sell a make of car, for example) and make certain rules for employees. Those elements might limit their speech, for example. While that might be mistaken for a violation of a right, it’s inherently not – since taking the job is voluntary. Of course government laws are not so “voluntary” (certainly apply to more than just its own employees, and one can not so easily “quit” citizenship in one country and “apply” for another), so it’s not good that a government runs its country like a corporation. (Of course it would be good if a government would have economic policies more like business - need to please customers and make a legitimate profit - but that’s another discussion.) But when you have government colluding with business and acting as their biggest hiring agency, you have the corporation-state effect, both in terms of “national interest” and “proper conduct” (see MIC, for example).

Before, the government was a puppet for corporations. Now, they seem to be merging and the rules we live under that of corporations rather than a free people.

-t

His writing style is shit, to be honest, and it becomes difficult to be too sure of his precise meaning in places. One can interpret his words in several ways.

It may be that he is observing that corporations institute arbitrary, anti-freedom rules (which they are entitled to do, up to a point), the problem being that as they become de facto government sans public accountability, real personal freedom (esp. outside the workplace) is thwarted. If this is his meaning, then he is on the money. But one can also interpret his entry as something of a whine that is demanding government to step in and stop the evil corporations from exercising their prerogatives as such.

He may have good things to say, but he really needs to work on his command of language.